May 8, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is conducting a securities investigation on behalf of investors and shareholders of Flex Ltd. (NASDAQGS: FLEX) to determine whether Flex and certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
Flex Reports Q4 and Fiscal 2018 Results – Discloses Allegations of Improper Accounting of Obligations in a Customer Contract and Certain Related Reserves
On April 26, 2018, Flex, “the Sketch-to-Scale™ solutions provider that designs and builds Intelligent Products for a Connected World™,” issued a press release which disclosed that
. . . the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, with the assistance of independent outside counsel, is undertaking an independent investigation of allegations made by an employee including that [Flex] improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves. The independent outside counsel also notified the San Francisco office of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the allegations and that it will report the findings of the independent investigation upon its conclusion.
Flex Stock Drops Over 21% On the News of the Accounting Allegations
On the news of the accounting allegations, the stock of Flex dropped more than $3.61 per share, or greater than 21.6%, to close at $13.03 per share on April 27, 2018.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Flex Stock Drops Over 21% On the News of the Accounting Allegations
On the news of the accounting allegations, the stock of Flex dropped more than $3.61 per share, or more than 21.6%, to close at $13.03 per share on April 27, 2018.
Securities Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Flex
On May 8, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against Flex Ltd. and the Company’s CEO and CFO in United States District Court, Northern District of California, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Investors Who Purchased, Or Otherwise Acquired, Flex Ordinary Shares Between January 26, 2017 and April 26, 2018, Inclusive (the “Class Period”), Are Encouraged to Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. To Discuss Their Potential Legal Claims and Options. Investors Who Purchased Flex Securities Have Until July 7, 2018 To Seek Appointment As Lead Plaintiff.
According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Flex Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the business, operations, and prospects of Flex. Specifically, the Flex Defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak and deficient; (ii) that Flex had improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the financial statements of Flex and the Flex Defendants about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The complaint also alleges that as a result of the Flex Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the securities of Flex, Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
Flex Shareholders and Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Flex securities and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who purchased Flex securities during the Class Period and suffered damages have until July 7, 2018 to file a motion with the Court to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Please note that no class has been certified in the above action, and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain an attorney of your choice. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as “lead plaintiff.” Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
May 2, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Antitrust Class Action – Alleged Unlawful Conspiracy to Suppress Employee Compensation
On May 1, 2018, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. and other co-counsel filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the antitrust laws of the United States against Defendants Knorr-Bremse AG, Knorr Brake Company LLC, New York Air Brake LLC (collectively, “Knorr”), Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (“Wabtec”), Wabtec Passenger Transit, a business unit of Wabtec, Wabtec Railway Electronics, a business unit of Wabtec, Faiveley Transport, S.A., a subsidiary of Wabtec, and Faiveley Transport North America, Inc., a subsidiary of Wabtec, based on Defendants’ and unnamed co-conspirators’ unlawful conspiracy to suppress Plaintiff’s and Class members’ compensation.
The class action seeks to recover damages for the lost compensation, including treble damages and other appropriate relief. Please click here to review a copy of the filed class action complaint.
WERE YOU PAID FOR PERSONAL SERVICES BY KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (“WABTEC”), WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT, WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A., FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA OR ANY WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ANY DEFENDANT, INCLUDING DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS AT ANY TIME BETWEEN 2009 AND THE PRESENT?
If so, then you may have a claim for compensation arising from the anticompetitive conduct. Please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss your potential legal claims. If you wish to discuss your concerns privately with an attorney, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected].
The federal antitrust class action was brought by and on behalf of individuals who have performed work for Defendants, who are some of the world’s largest rail equipment suppliers and subsidiaries or business units thereof. Rail equipment personnel, like personnel in any labor market, benefit when their employers compete for their services. Competition in the labor market creates leverage for personnel, which, in turn, leads to higher wages and greater mobility.
Allegedly, from 2009 to the present, Defendants, along with other unnamed individuals and entities acting as co-conspirators, conspired not to recruit, solicit, or hire without prior approval each other’s personnel (the “No-Poach Conspiracy” or “Conspiracy”). The No-Poach Conspiracy, which is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, limited the Plaintiff’s and Class members’ job mobility and, in turn, suppressed their compensation below the levels that would have been available absent the Conspiracy.
On April 3, 2018, Defendants Knorr and Wabtec announced their agreement to settle charges brought by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), after the DOJ’s lengthy investigation of the No-Poach Conspiracy. The DOJ found that Defendants’ agreements that formed the No-Poach Conspiracy were per se violations of the Sherman Act. The DOJ stated these agreements “were facially anticompetitive because they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract skilled labor in the U.S. rail industry.” Specifically, the DOJ said further that “these agreements denied employees access to better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of competitively significant information that they could have used to negotiate for better terms of employment.”
Although the DOJ and Defendants have reached a settlement, pursuant to which Defendants have agreed to certain ongoing conduct remedies, the DOJ settlement does not provide relief for those who were injured by the No-Poach Conspiracy. Without this class action, Plaintiff and the Class will not receive compensation for their injuries, and Defendants will continue to retain the benefits of their unlawful collusion.
The Proposed Knorr, New York Air Brake, Wabtec, Faiveley Transport Antitrust Class
The proposed antitrust action Class consists of all natural persons who were paid for personal services by any of the Defendants, or by any wholly-owned subsidiary of any Defendant, including Defendants’ employees or contractors, at any time from January 1, 2009, to the present. Excluded from the Class are senior executives and personnel in the human resources and recruiting departments of the Defendants and their wholly owned subsidiaries, as well as personnel hired outside of the United States to work outside of the United States.
May 2, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
SEC Launches “SEC Action Lookup for Individuals,” a/k/a “SALI,” An Online Tool For Investors to Identify Individuals Subject to Judgments or Orders in Enforcement Actions
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. reports that on May 2, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the launch of an online search feature which investors can use to research whether the person trying to sell them investments has a judgment or order entered against them in an enforcement action. The new tool, known as the SEC Action Lookup for Individuals, or SALI, is intended to assist the public in making informed investment decisions and avoiding financial fraud.
SALI will help identify registered and unregistered individuals who have been parties to past SEC enforcement actions and against whom federal courts have entered judgments or the SEC has issued orders. SEC Chairman Jay Clayton stated, “SALI provides Main Street investors with an additional tool they can use to protect themselves from being victims of fraud and other misconduct.”
SALI’s results are not limited to registered investment professionals, as with many existing online search functions. SALI allows the public to identify individuals who have settled, defaulted, or contested an enforcement action brought by the SEC, provided that a final judgment or order was entered against them in a federal court or an administrative proceeding.
According to the SEC, SALI supplements existing SEC-provided investor education resources available on Investor.gov, including a free investment professional search tool, that provides access to information on investment adviser representatives as well as individuals listed in FINRA’s BrokerCheck system.
SALI search results include parties from SEC actions filed between October 1, 2014 and March 31, 2018. Please note that the SEC will update the search feature periodically to add parties from newly-filed actions and actions filed prior to October 1, 2014.
More information about SEC federal court actions and administrative proceedings can be found by selecting the Enforcement tab on Sec.gov. Additonal investor-related resources can be found at information for the individual investor and Investor.gov.
Source: SEC.gov
May 2, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 25, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Credit One Bank, N.A. violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for contacting the Plaintiff without his prior express consent on his cellular telephone to collect an alleged debt owed by the Plaintiff to Credit One Bank.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving numerous telephone calls in November 2017 regarding the collection of a supposed debt the Plaintiff owed to Credit One Bank. According to the complaint, “. . . in or around October of 2017, Defendant sold the alleged debt to a third party. However, [Capital One Bank] continued to contact Plaintiff in an attempt to collect upon the alleged debt.” Although the Plaintiff requested that Capital One Bank stop calling him, the calls, allegedly, continued.
The complaint states that the Plaintiff was contacted by the following telephone numbers, which belonged to Capital One Bank: (909) 334-4496; (909) 334-4526; (909) 557-9991; (909) 334-4526; (909) 479-3367; (909) 479-3357; (909) 557-9989; (909) 557-9990; (909) 479-3347; (909) 479-2480; (704) 496-5354; and (866) 910-7740.
The class action complaint, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California (8:18-cv-00703), seeks, among other relief, statutory damages.
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
May 1, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On April 30, 2018, the SEC announced that Japan-based Panasonic Corp. will pay more than $143 million to resolve charges of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and accounting fraud violations involving its global avionics business.
Panasonic Avionics Orchestrated Bribery Scheme
According to the SEC’s order, Panasonic’s U.S. subsidiary, Panasonic Avionics Corp. (PAC), a provider of in-flight entertainment and communication systems, offered a lucrative consulting position to a government official at a state-owned airline to induce the official to help PAC in obtaining and retaining business from the airline. At the time it orchestrated the bribery scheme, PAC was negotiating two agreements with the airline valued at more than $700 million. PAC ultimately retained the official and paid approximately $875,000 for a position that required little to no work, using an unrelated third-party vendor to conceal the payments.
Panasonic Fraudulently Overstated Pre-Tax and Net Income
The SEC’s order also found that Panasonic fraudulently overstated pre-tax and net income by prematurely recognizing more than $82 million in revenue for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012. The fraud was accomplished by PAC backdating an agreement with the airline and providing misleading information to PAC’s auditor.
The SEC order further found that Panasonic lacked sufficient internal accounting controls and failed to make and keep accurate books and records in connection with purported consultants retained by PAC, as well as sales agents used to solicit business from state-owned airlines and other customers throughout the Middle East and Asia.
Panasonic consented to the SEC’s order finding that it violated the anti-bribery, anti-fraud, books and records, internal accounting controls, and reporting provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and ordering it to pay approximately $143 million in disgorgement and pre-judgement interest. In a related matter, the U.S. Department of Justice today announced that PAC would pay a criminal penalty of more than $137 million as part of a deferred prosecution agreement related to causing books and records violations of the FCPA.
Source: SEC.gov
